This is from Investor’s Business Daily:

At the recent Democratic National Convention, the party of the donkey worked overtime at remaking Hillary Clinton’s image from one of an ethically challenged political operator to one of a caring champion of children and families. But as new revelations about her shady dealings with Russia emerge, it may all be for nought.

New revelations from Peter Schweizer, the author of the meticulously documented book “Clinton Cash,” and Stephen K. Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart, show that Hillary’s campaign Chairman John Podesta “sat on the board of a small energy company alongside Russian officials that received $35 million from a Putin-connected Russian government fund.”

Making things worse, Podesta never fully disclosed the relationship, as the law requires. But of greater concern than Podesta is what it says about Clinton’s strange and mutually beneficial relationship with Russia that led to Clinton lending a hand in helping Vladimir Putin build Skolkovo, a high-tech community meant to be “the Russian equivalent of America’s Silicon Valley.”

This is not some sort of free-enterprise experiment. As the authors detail in a study published by the Government Accountability Institute, some 30,000 workers toiled in the state-of-the-art tech hub “under strict governmental control.” While Clinton was in charge at the State Department, the U.S. recruited a bunch of U.S. high-tech powerhouses — including Google, Cisco and Intel — to take part in the project.

Of the 28 companies from the U.S., Europe and Russia that took part, 17 were donors to the Clinton Foundation or paid for Bill Clinton to give speeches.

It’s yet another stunning example of the Clinton Foundation’s growing list of conflicts of interest, suggesting that Hillary used the State Department’s offices to line her family’s pockets through the Clinton Foundation. Don’t forget that, with her email carelessness on her home-brew server during her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary has already exposed the United States’ most secret information to the Russian government. As radio talk show host and law professor Hugh Hewitt noted Monday: “Hillary is already a Putin pawn.”

This was no accident. Nor was it innocent. FBI Assistant Special Agent Lucia Ziobro in 2014 sent a letter to several U.S. corporate participants in the project warning: “The (Skolkovo) foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application. … The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by the government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies.”

Which brings us back to Podesta. He sat on the board of a tiny energy company named Joule Unlimited, write Bannon and Schweizer. A mere two months after he joined the board, Rusnano, founded by Vladimir Putin in 2007, invested $35 million in the company. Podesta sat on three separate boards of Joule-affiliated corporate entities, but only reported two.

Moreover, Podesta’s own leftist think tank, the Center for American Progress, got $5.25 million from a group called the Sea Change Foundation in the four years ending in 2013. Sea Change, in return, had received what the authors call “a large infusion of funds from a mysterious Bermuda-based entity called ‘Klein Ltd.'”, which appears to have Russian ties.

This puts Clinton’s actions while in office under deep suspicion – including her enabling a “reset” with Russia that seems to have led to a resurgent Russia expanding its military, diplomatic and economic power in Eastern Europe and the Mideast.

In a wide-ranging interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Hillary suggested that Donald Trump “has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin, whether it’s saying that NATO wouldn’t come to the rescue of allies if they were invaded, talking about removing sanctions from Russian officials after they were imposed by the United States and Europe together, because of Russia’s aggressiveness in Crimea and Ukraine, his praise for Putin which is I think quite remarkable.”

Anyway much remarked upon, with pretense of shock and horror, by the US media. Whereas her commercial collaboration with Putin, and her exposing of state and military secrets to his government hackers, is unlikely to be remarked upon at all. In any case, such things make no difference to her followers and fans. They gave up caring about the character, morals, criminal behavior, and treachery of their present candidate for the presidency long ago; from the very beginning of her “political career” as the wife of a governor.

Giving charity is the Clintons’ business. It is enormously profitable for them.  

How do they make their “giving”, through a “non-profit” foundation they own, into a phenomenally enriching enterprise?

We have told how in these posts: The great good works and wonky dilemmas of William J. Clinton, April 18, 2015; Floating up now from a sewer named Clinton, April 23, 2015; What needs to be known about the Clintons’ charities, April 25, 2015; Touched by the Clintons, May 1, 2015; The Clintons’ blood money, May 26, 2016. (Put any title – preferably all in sequence – in our search slot to get the low-down, which is very low indeed.)

Here’s more.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Under [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s] leadership, at least a handful of the State Department’s global health efforts relied on drug companies that were also major Clinton Foundation donors in arrangements that raise questions about the distance Clinton kept from her family’s philanthropy. …

There is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation.

She said. As usual, she was lying.

However, the same pharmaceutical firms that donated to the Clinton Foundation and sought the foundation-funded contracts Clinton described were also lobbying the State Department at the same time as some pursued taxpayer-funded contracts to do similar work. Executives at those companies have also contributed heavily to Clinton’s presidential campaign, complicating her attempts to attack the pharmaceutical industry as a political “enemy” akin to Republicans. …

The Clinton Health Access is just one of several charities operating within the sprawling philanthropic network known as the Clinton Foundation. Others include the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership and the Clinton Family Foundation. In some cases, the distinctions between which nonprofits are separate entities and which are offshoots of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation are unclear.

For example, the Clinton Global Initiative was peeled off from the larger Clinton Foundation in 2009 and operated as an individual charity until Clinton left the State Department in 2013, at which point it was rolled back into the main organization.

The confusing structure can make tracing the precise destination of donations to the foundation a difficult task. However, donor records show major pharmaceutical firms — including Pfizer, Merck & Co., and Sanofi — have written generous checks to the Clinton Foundation.

In its 2008 annual report, for instance, the Clinton Global Initiative touted a partnership with Merck to provide rotavirus vaccines to infants in Nicaragua. Shortly before that, the drug corporation was rocked by Brazil’s decision to strip Merck of a patent on HIV drugs in order to open its markets to cheaper generic versions of the medication.

So Merck took a knock, asked Hillary and help, and got it:

During Clinton’s first year at the agency, Merck lobbied the State Department to ease regulations restricting the distribution of its drugs “in certain Latin American markets,” according to lobbying disclosure forms from 2009. That placed the drug company’s international interests squarely on Clinton’s desk. By June of that year, her staff was collecting press clips on a $75 million partnership with Merck, funded by the State Department, to reduce childbirth-related deaths in Africa.

Wasn’t that nice of Hillary?

The Norwegian government had pledged a matching $75 million to the initiative, which was spearheaded by Clinton.

She deserved a little reward, wouldn’t you say?

She got it:

The government of Norway has also donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation, giving up to $25 million to the nonprofit.

She found partnering with Norway great fun, greatly lucrative:

In fact, Clinton’s emails suggest she even asked members of her State Department staff to facilitate a Norwegian donation to a foundation project, the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.

The clean cookstoves project served as a clear example of the blurred lines between Clinton’s foundation and State Department work.

In 2010, the secretary of state herself took the stage at the glitzy annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative and announced the State Department’s commitment to the clean cookstoves alliance, which sought to reduce dependence on cookstoves for heating and cooking in developing countries.

Led by Clinton, the Obama administration poured $105 million into the clean cookstoves project.

She delivered for Merck:

As a senator, Clinton had reportedly written a letter urging the Department of Health and Human Services to approve Merck’s human papillomavirus vaccine in 2005.

By 2011, under her purview at the State Department, the U.S. government had teamed up with Merck to provide that same HPV vaccine to women in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. The initiative was set to cost $75 million. …

And for Pfizer:

In Aug. 2009, the Clinton Health Access Initiative announced it had negotiated a deal with Pfizer to provide HIV medications across the developing world at a price that was marked down by 60 percent. That same year, Pfizer was also lobbying Clinton’s State Department in its interests, as it did every year of her tenure, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Pfizer gave up to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.

The pharmaceutical giant wrote a large check to the State Department to sponsor the U.S. pavilion at the 2010 World’s Fair in Shanghai. The expo was a priority early in Clinton’s term for political reasons, and the former secretary of state tapped her vast donor network to foot the entire $60 million bill during her first year at the State Department.

In 2012, Pfizer teamed up with the U.S. Agency for International Development, an arm of the State Department, for a major purchase of contraceptive drugs that were to be distributed to three million women.

Executives from Pfizer have also donated heavily to Clinton’s presidential campaign. …

The well-connected charity has weathered controversy for the pattern of preferential treatment that seemed to flow from the State Department to the most generous of foundation contributors, be they pharmaceutical giants or oil conglomerates, since Clinton launched her bid for the White House last year.

Many of those same donors line Clinton’s campaign coffers today.

But the Democratic nominee continues to downplay criticism of her family’s philanthropy on the increasingly limited occasions she is asked about it.

Earlier this week, a report detailing financial entanglements among Hillary Clinton’s State Department, Russia and 17 companies that had either donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid former President Bill Clinton for a speech reignited the political perlustration of foundation activities that has come to define the nonprofit’s public profile.

Russia? Oh, yes.

Our next post will be about Hillary Clinton and Vladimir Putin.

Khizr Kahn, the Muslim father of a US soldier who died in Iraq, spoke about his son’s death at the DNC convention. He did it to deliver a fierce rebuke to Donald Trump, who wants to take measures as president to protect Americans from Muslim terrorism.

Khizr Khan has worked long and hard to replace America the Land of Liberty and Tolerance with an America the Islamic Land of Submission and Intolerance.

Yet he claims that his son’s death in the Iraq war (in 2004) was a “sacrifice” that he, Khizr Kahn, made for the USA.  He accused Donald Trump of not doing this noble thing. “You have sacrificed nothing and no one,” he said.

It’s not easy to make sense of that. In fact, it does not make sense.

Humayan Khan, the son, can certainly be said to have died in honorable military service to America. And logically, in all consistency, the father should be furious about it! One would expect to hear that Khizr Khan opposed his son’s joining the US army. We don’t know if he did. What we do know is that, in the light of Khizr’s career trying to change America into an Islamic country under sharia law, it is the height of hypocrisy and nothing short of astounding that he should claim his son’s death as his own “sacrifice” – for America the Land of Liberty and Tolerance. If he said he lost his son to that America, he would be making sense. Nasty sense, but sense.

His cynicism is matched and even surpassed by that of the Democratic Party – aka the Clinton Party – which has Khizr Khan appear on its platform at its convention to make that claim; to preen himself as someone whom America should hold in respect and honor because he made such a “sacrifice”; and to promote the claim as a “so there!” to Donald Trump. Because Donald Trump plans to exclude the likes of Khizr Khan, the promoters of sharia law, the would-be transformers of America the Land of Liberty and Tolerance into a sharia-ruled hell.

One of Khizr Kahn’s missions has been to bring as many Muslims into America as he can, towards achieving his objective of turning it into an Islamic country. As Trump threatens to make this impossible, of course Khan hates and dreads him. Khan will do anything to oppose him; even giving a lying and self-vaunting speech exploiting his own son’s honorable death at the DNC.

Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat discuss the issue, and give information about Khizr Khan’s life-long activity against America, in an article at their own website, from which we quote:

The Muslim who attacked Donald Trump … is a Muslim Brotherhood agent who wants to advance sharia law and bring Muslims into the United States. …

Khan wrote his Sharia Law supporting work in the eighties while he was in Saudi Arabia, the motherland of Wahhabism. This would never be possible unless Khan clearly had the support of the Saudi Wahhabist religious institution. …

He runs a law firm in New York City … According to the website, the law firm specializes in “immigration services”. …

Immigration services to Muslims, of course.

And – wouldn’t you have known it ! – there’s a Clinton connection going way back:

 Khan used to work for Hogan & Hartson and Lovells, which has ties to the Clinton Foundation:

Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show.

Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton’s campaign.

And there are more Saudi and Clinton ties:

Saudi interests with using Khan to advance Muslim immigration and advance Muslim Sharia is a lengthy subject which has ties to Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin as well. … The House of Saud  … the Abedins (Huma Abedin and family) … played a central role in using Muslim immigration to infiltrate the west with Wahhabi agenda. The House of Saud had used Huma’s father Sayed Zaynul Abedin’s work regarding [the Journal of ] Muslim Minority Affairs … as part of 29 works to construct a plan to conquer the U.S. with Islam.

It is obvious that Khan is upset, that a Trump victory will eliminate and destroy decades of hard work to bring in Islamic immigration into the United States which was spearheaded by agents in Saudi Arabia like [himself] and Huma Abedin and [her] family (Sayed Z. Abedin).

They recall other Muslims who joined the US army  – to “sacrifice” themselves not for America, but for its Islamic enemy:

In regards to his son and his sacrifice, on the other side of the coin, many were the “Muslim martyrs” who joined the US military. Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed, for example, enlisted in the Special Forces of the US Army; he was a double agent for Al-Qaeda. How about Hasan K. Akbar, a Muslim American soldier who murdered and injured fifteen soldiers. There was Bowe Bergdahl, an American Muslim soldier who deserted his men to join the Taliban, a desertion which led to six American being ambushed and killed while they were on the search looking for him. And of course the example of Nidal Malik Hassan, who murdered fourteen Americans in cold blood in Fort Hood.

What about infiltration into the U.S. military like Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, a major Muslim thinker for the Muslim Minority Affairs, an icon of the Abedin family … who, while he served in U.S. military, called on arming Muslims to fight the U.S? Al-Alwani is an IMMA (Institute of Muslims Minority Affairs) favorite … whom Hillary’s aide Huma Abedin credits as the source for their doctrine (it can’t get any better than this). … [He] is an ardent anti-Semite who by the way, runs the United States Department of Defense program for training Muslim military chaplains in the U.S. military.

The Abedins’ Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs confirms that their program stems from these same extremist sources including the notorious Taha Jaber Al-Alwani as well as the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi.

Right! We found that the journal states:

“Fiqh al-Aqalliyyat”—the jurisprudence of Muslim minorities—is a legal doctrine introduced in the 1990s by Taha Jabir Al-Alwani and Yusuf Al-Qaradawi which asserts that Muslim minorities, especially those residing in the West, deserve a special new legal discipline to address their unique religious needs …

The “legal discipline” of sharia, he means of course. Yet Khan brandished a copy of the US Constitution at the DNC.

The Shoebat article sums up:

In a nutshell, the Muslim Minority Affairs program is part of a grand plan to destroy America from within, exactly as the Muslim Brotherhood planned, which was exposed in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

And the moral of the story is: Anyone whom the Clintons set before you as worthy of your sympathy and respect is bound to be a scoundrel, and probably an enemy of the USA.

*

This is from Western Journalism, by Gerry Urbanek:

According to his website*, Khan — an immigration lawyer — helps clients gain E-2 and EB-5 visas, which provide green cards to foreign investors along with their families. Yet this particular visa program is highly controversial and has been accused of allowing foreigners to buy residency.

“The E-2 and EB-5 are two of the most notoriously abused visa categories that essentially allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way to U.S. residency, and possibly citizenship, with a relatively modest investment,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy director for the Center of Immigration Studies. “The EB-5 is literally a ‘citizenship for sale’ program in which a visa for a whole family can be bought for as little $500,000. … It’s an amazing deal.” …

In exchange for their $500,000 investment, immigrants who opt for this program receive green cards for themselves, their spouses and all of their children under the age of 21. …

Trump’s proposed policies on immigration are clearly a threat to this scofflaw trade.

*Khan’s website has been taken down.

A Muslim, Khizr Kahn, spoke at the Democratic convention last week of his son’s death in Iraq serving as a US soldier, implying that he, the father, has thus made a “sacrifice”. He leveled a strange accusation at Donald Trump, saying “you have sacrificed nothing and no one” for the U.S..

By viewing his soldier son’s death in combat as his “sacrifice”, this father turns an honorable death – that of a soldier doing his  job, fulfilling his promise, doing his  duty –  into a religious martyrdom. Such a view accords with a meretricious calibration of praiseworthiness: an unlucky, or weak, or not well enough trained soldier is wounded in action or is taken prisoner: he becomes a “hero”. That in itself is taking his praise a little too far. (He may bear his wounds or captivity heroically.) Another soldier is killed and he becomes a “sacrifice”, a “martyr”?  Fighting for one’s country – if it is a civilized country – must be done by rational men who know their job is to kill, who are willing to kill, and who want to survive. Bravery may be part of their character, but is trained into becoming a lethal aggression – not love of death. 

Suicide-bombers are self-sacrificers and “martyrs”. They are not rational people. They are not fighting for civilization.

With the view of combat deaths as “sacrifices”, the war itself becomes mystical. But it is not. If an army were trained to think of war in mystical terms – a ritual blood-letting –  it would diminish the soldiers’ will to win, to return victorious after having got the job – the job of killing – done. 

As “sacrifice” arises in the Khan versus Trump matter, it is particularly disgusting. There is no question that Khan is using the death of his Muslim soldier son to make a political point that there is no Islamic threat. And that is shameless grief-mongering, because his son was killed by Iraqis in a war started by Islamic terrorism.

If his death is to be considered a sacrifice at all, it can only be so in the general context of the terrorist-denying, enemy-denying, rules of engagement imposed by the “win-hearts-and-minds” policy of a decadent America happy to sacrifice its warriors on the altar of “nation-building”. Captain Humayan Khan died when he approached a vehicle that blew up. Had his orders been to shoot on sight at any vehicle breaking the barricade, he might have saved himself, the two Iraqi civilians who were also killed by the explosion, and his men who were injured. But he had been trained to regard civilians as friends although they were in enemy territory.

During his three months in Iraq, Khan helped put Iraqi civilians to work for $5 an hour patrolling the streets of Baquba under the U.S. Army, his father said.

The political point Khan was making was: had there been Trump’s moratorium policy in place when he wanted to come to America, his family (from Pakistan and UAE) would not have been able to make their sacrifice, and his son would not have been here to fight for America. By exactly the same logic, had those policies been in place for Major Hasan’s parents (from “Palestine”), Hasan would not have killed American soldiers at Fort Hood. Were Hasan’s victims “sacrifices”?  Yes, to the see-no-Islam, speak-no-Islam, hear-no-Islam policies in all government branches, which allowed a Muslim officer who openly declared his hatred of America and its military to carry on as one of America’s finest. 

Khan’s son’s death should be – as it has been – acknowledged as an honorable death. He got medals. To regard his death as a martyrdom in the Muslim style – and for political purposes! – does not become acceptable just because it is wrapped in the American flag.

The parents of Major Hasan’s victims are entitled to have their sons and daughters acknowledged as dying in combat against the same Islamic enemy as Khan died fighting. They too should get their medals – as they did, at last. 

Robert Spencer writes at Front Page:

The mainstream media is wild with enthusiasm these days over Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim soldier, Humayun Khan, who was killed fighting in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, brimming with self-righteous anger, spoke at the Democratic National Convention, where he delivered what the Washington Post dubbed a “brutal repudiation of Donald Trump”. … There’s just one catch: Khizr is using his son’s memory not to advance the cause of the United States, as his son apparently died trying to do, but to advance a quite different cause: that of the global umma.

The well-heeled and powerful backers of the global jihad – those who have enabled the Islamic State (ISIS), al-Qaeda, and other jihad groups to grow as powerful as they have today — are enraged at Donald Trump. They are deeply worried by his call for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the United States, as that will make it much more difficult for jihadis to get into this country. They are anxious to stigmatize any and all resistance to jihad terror – and so, happily enough for them, is the Democratic Party, which has eagerly signed on to the longtime strategy employed by Islamic supremacist advocacy groups in the U.S., to demonize all effective measures against jihad terror as “bigoted” and “Islamophobic”. 

So it was that Khizr Khan, in the full fury of his indignation at the DNC, trotted out a straw man, falsely claiming that Trump wanted to “ban us from this country”.  Trump has said nothing about banning Muslim citizens of the U.S. from the country, only about a temporary moratorium on immigration from terror states.

Coming clean: we advocate the deportation of all Muslims living in a Western state who will not renounce jihad and sharia. We like Trump’s “temporary moratorium” on more Muslims coming into the US as a step in the right direction.

 Even worse, all the effusive praise being showered on Khizr Khan in the last few days overlooks one central point: he is one man. His family is one family. There are no doubt many others like his, but this fact does not mean that there is no jihad, or that all Muslims in the U.S. are loyal citizens.

Khizr Khan is enraged at Donald Trump, but is Trump really the cause of his problem? Jihad terrorists, not Donald Trump or “Islamophobes”,  killed his son in Iraq. And if Donald Trump or anyone else looks upon Muslims in the U.S. military with suspicion, it is with good reason: does any other demographic have as high a rate of treason as Muslims in the U.S. military? In 2003, a convert to Islam, Sgt. Hasan Akbar, murdered two of his commanding officers in Kuwait. In 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 Americans at Fort Hood.

Other than those attacks, a Muslim in the U.S. Navy discussed sniper attacks on military personnel. A Muslim U.S. naval engineer allegedly gave an Egyptian agent information on how to sink a U.S. carrier. In 2015, a Muslim National Guard soldier in Illinois planned an Islamic State jihad attack against a U.S. military base. Last February, a U.S. Army enlistee who vowed to “bring the Islamic State straight to your doorstep” pleaded guilty to attempting to detonate a car bomb at Fort Riley military base in Kansas. Just days ago, a U.S. Air Force veteran was convicted of trying to join the Islamic State.

Then there is the U.S. Muslim who gave the Islamic State U.S. military uniforms, combat boots, tactical gear, firearms accessories, and thousands in cash. Where are those uniforms now?

It is good that there are Muslims in the U.S. military who are loyal. But can we have a discussion about those who aren’t, and why they aren’t, and what can be done about it? Such a discussion is vitally necessary, but it wouldn’t serve the classic objective of the global umma, to increase the dar al-Islam (house of Islam) at the dar al-harb (house of war). Nor would an open discussion of Khan’s Sunday morning assertion on Meet the Press that terrorists “have nothing to do with Islam”. 

We constantly are told this, but the repetition doesn’t make it true. In the first place, jihadis repeatedly make clear that they think what they’re doing has everything to do with Islam …

Spencer quotes seven Muslims, six terrorists and a scholar, whose declarations amply prove his assertion. And he follows that with twelve of “many passages of the Qur’an exhorting Muslims to commit acts of violence”.

Finally he asks:

How does Khizr Khan explain all that? He doesn’t — and he knows that no one in the mainstream media will ask him to. All this disinformation and obfuscation he is perpetrating serves the interests of the global umma – but not in any sense those of the United States.

It needs to be known that Khizr Kahn is a passionately devoted member of, and agent and propagandist for, the Muslim Brotherhood. He works zealously to import Muslims and change America into an Islamic State.

Find more about him in our next post.

Although we are atheists, we’re happy to bring our readers John Cleese’s persuasive recruiting ad for his new Christian church, because we are also capitalists: